How to Save Ham Radio

[N5PVL]

In Australia, the WinLink system was found to be illegal - due to an Australian communication law which forbids the regular transport of non-ham communications over the ham bands.

Since E-mail are non ham (Internet) communications, it was found to be illegal to transport such over the ham bands on any kind of regular basis.

This has protected amateur radio in Australia from the introduction of various "Integration with the Internet" schemes and the destructive pressures that follow...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif - The pressure to eliminate content restrictions.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif - The pressure to introduce encrypted communications into the ham bands.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif - The pressure to hog up the HF bands with 25khz. and wider signals in an attempt to repeal the laws of physics and have "high-speed" digital connections on HF.

The Australian law prohibits the "Integration of Amateur Radio with the Internet" stupidity that underlies these destructive pressures - but still allows amateur radio content to be transported over non-ham links, and so has no effect upon EchoLink, etc.

Obviously the protection that this kind of law offers is needed here in the United States as well, and the way to obtain that protection is to propose such to the FCC, in the same way the ARRL recently presented its ill-concieved "segmentation by bandwidth" proposal to the FCC.

A "Protection from Internet Encroachment" proposal would eliminate the pressures listed above, eliminate the troublemaking WinLink system and prevent similar ideas from being foisted upon the amateur radio community by the ARRL or anybody else.

Why should the Australians be alone in enjoying this protection?

Amateurs in the USA who do not want to see the bands taken over by digital modes, carrying SPAM and porno, encrypted business communications and doing so over ultra-wideband signals that crowd out CW, SSB and other traditional modes should join me in developing and proposing this protective addition to the PART97 regulations.

[kg4dci]

No thanks, some of us want to see the hobby move forward and continue to use new digital modes and internet linking.

How are you going to word a proposal not to use the internet which bans winlink but doesn't ban aprs internet gateways, and internet based repeater linking?

[KI4ITI]

Quote[/b] (kg4dci @ Dec. 12 2005,08:47)]How are you going to word a proposal not to use the internet which bans winlink but doesn't ban aprs internet gateways, and internet based repeater linking?
APRS-IS, IRLP, EchoLink, etc. are all about using the Internet to carry ham radio communications, not about using ham radio to carry Internet communications.

Using ham radio frequencies to regularly carry non-ham, non-radio communications is what Australia has found to be illegal. The distinction is easy to make.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]Amateurs in the USA who do not want to see the bands taken over by digital modes, carrying SPAM and porno, encrypted business communications and doing so over ultra-wideband signals that crowd out CW, SSB and other traditional modes should join me in developing and proposing this protective addition to the PART97 regulations.

All of this is already illegal under part 97 regulations. #Business communications are illegal, which also covers spam. Innappropriate and encrypted content is also already illegal.

As another poster noted, RF voice transmissions are being linked via the internet through modes like EchoLink, IRLP......Conversely, EchoLink does not allow Internet proticols such as HTTP to be broadcast via broadband RF transmissions. The distinction MUST be made. I ABSOLUTELY support any ban on transmitting internet proticols via Amateur RF bands, but I do not support a ban on LINKING repeaters via Internet. They are absolute opposites of one another in technology and a clear distinction must be drawn between the two. If the intent of this proposition is to lump all forms of digital modes which utilize the internet into one generalized category, it will not get my support, and I will make sure that nobody is fooled into not knowing the difference.


......After reading your post twice to make sure I understood it completely, it sounds like you do make a distinction between broadband digital transmissions on HF intended to carry internet related material, and RF transmissions being channeled through the internet via Echolink to link repeaters. At least, I think I am reading it correctly and getting that message. If the language of your proposal makes that distinction, then it WILL get my support. I apologize if I misinterpreted anything.

I also read your other thread concerning the Winlink system. I have no kowledge or experience with this in particular, so I can't intelligently comment. I do see the problems associated with sending internet type communications over HF frequencies, so as I said before, I support language in the part 97 rules that regulate this type of transmission, so long, again, as it doesn't blurr the distinction between Internet over RF and RF over internet.

[kg4dci]

Quote[/b] (ki4iti @ Dec. 12 2005,08:55)]Quote[/b] (kg4dci @ Dec. 12 2005,08:47)]How are you going to word a proposal not to use the internet which bans winlink but doesn't ban aprs internet gateways, and internet based repeater linking?
APRS-IS, IRLP, EchoLink, etc. are all about using the Internet to carry ham radio communications, not about using ham radio to carry Internet communications.

Using ham radio frequencies to regularly carry non-ham, non-radio communications is what Australia has found to be illegal. The distinction is easy to make.
Your cutting a very fine line in that statement though...

Lets take APRS-IS for example... like Winlink you can send short text messages from the internet to ars... these messages can be third party messages....

So, lets use this example... lets say as a control operator, I wanted to transmit weather data from stations reporting on the internet onto aprs via a gateway so I and other skywarn hams in the area could have access to that information in our cars during bad weather... (of course taking into account appropriate controls to prevent misuse)

Isn't that taking internet traffic and placing it on ARS... just the same as winlink?

The FCC has enough enforcement language, they know about Winlink and how it works... if they wanted to shut it down, they could... it's clearly a grey area, but much like autopatchs, one the fcc seems to be willing to overlook...

The last thing we need is more regulation slowing down new modes and functions of this hobby.

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (kg4dci @ Dec. 12 2005,10:58)]The FCC has enough enforcement language, they know about Winlink and how it works... if they wanted to shut it down, they could... #it's clearly a grey area, but much like autopatchs, one the fcc seems to be willing to overlook...
You really think the FCC really has a clue or even cares what is going on with amateur radio in general much less the finer points of WinLink? Over 20 years ago, they entirely turned over the the testing process to the ARRL and a handful of other VEC's. The only ham who has any authority there is Riley Hollingsworth and look how long it has taken to bring Jack Gerritsen to trial. I would hate to see it happen, but I think the FCC would just as soon turn over all amateur radio regulation to the ARRL. Don't laugh, it has happened in other countries.

With the ARRL's support of WinLink, it is probably unlikely the FCC will initiate any legal action. What it will take is one of those other providers suing one of the WinLink system operators in order to shut this thing down.

Scott NØIU

[K2WH]

"How to save ham radio"http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Hmmmm. How about getting off this stupid thread of yours and actually use a radio.

K2WH

[WA2DYA]

So saying, he gave the spur to his steed Rocinante, heedless of the cries his squire Sancho sent after him, warning him that most certainly they were windmills and not giants he was going to attack. He, however, was so positive they were giants that he neither heard the cries of Sancho, nor perceived, near as he was, what they were, but made at them shouting, "Fly not, cowards and vile beings, for a single knight attacks you."

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] ]
......After reading your post twice to make sure I understood it completely, it sounds like you do make a distinction between broadband digital transmissions on HF intended to carry internet related material, and RF transmissions being channeled through the internet via Echolink to link repeaters. At least, I think I am reading it correctly and getting that message. If the language of your proposal makes that distinction, then it WILL get my support. I apologize if I misinterpreted anything.


You have it exactly right. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N5KRC]

Quote[/b] (kg4dci @ Dec. 12 2005,00:58)]
Your cutting a very fine line in that statement though...

Lets take APRS-IS for example... like Winlink you can send short text messages from the internet to ars... these messages can be third party messages....

So, lets use this example... lets say as a control operator, I wanted to transmit weather data from stations reporting on the internet onto aprs via a gateway so I and other skywarn hams in the area could have access to that information in our cars during bad weather... (of course taking into account appropriate controls to prevent misuse)

Isn't that taking internet traffic and placing it on ARS... just the same as winlink?

The FCC has enough enforcement language, they know about Winlink and how it works... if they wanted to shut it down, they could... it's clearly a grey area, but much like autopatchs, one the fcc seems to be willing to overlook...

The last thing we need is more regulation slowing down new modes and functions of this hobby.
The Internet runs using two protocols: TCP and IP. There are "services" based upon those two protocols. SMTP, or Simple Mail Transport Protocol, is an TCP-based protocol to transmit messages from one node on the Internet (or private network) to another node. The link between the two could be wired, RF, cans-n-string, whatever you want. It's still, however, talking TCP and IP.

With EchoLink, you are using TCP/IP as the "transport" to transport the digital audio from one node to another. Once you traverse the Internet and go out an RF connection, no TCP or IP packets are used; Only the packets dealing with the digital voice.

With APRS, your beacon or message packets are NOT TCP/IP. APRS has it's own protocol. Just as with Echolink, the "Internet gateways" just "transport" that data from one node to another, and once it gets past the gateway, no TCP/IP are used. In your example, only your weather data is making it to your skywarn ham's vehicles. THEY are not connected to the internet in real time talking TCP/IP back to your weather station.

The other side to the coin is, using RF to implement the TCP/IP protocol between two RF stations, with one being connected to the Internet. This allows a ham operator with an rf-connected-computer to be able to fire up his browser and surf the web, send and receive e-mails, do instant messaging, browse porn, etc.

There is no "very fine line" here. Some systems use the Internet soley to move data from one point to another, "linking" the two points together. Other systems actually provide "Internet access" over the air to an RF-connected computer.

Clear as mud?

Scott, N5KRC

[kg4dci]

Quote[/b] (N5KRC @ Dec. 13 2005,10:48)]Quote[/b] (kg4dci @ Dec. 12 2005,00:58)]
Your cutting a very fine line in that statement though...

Lets take APRS-IS for example... #like Winlink you can send short text messages from the internet to ars... these messages can be third party messages....

So, lets use this example... lets say as a control operator, I wanted to transmit weather data from stations reporting on the internet onto aprs via a gateway so I and other skywarn hams in the area could have access to that information in our cars during bad weather... #(of course taking into account appropriate controls to prevent misuse)

Isn't that taking internet traffic and placing it on ARS... just the same as winlink?

The FCC has enough enforcement language, they know about Winlink and how it works... if they wanted to shut it down, they could... #it's clearly a grey area, but much like autopatchs, one the fcc seems to be willing to overlook...

The last thing we need is more regulation slowing down new modes and functions of this hobby.
The Internet runs using two protocols: TCP and IP. #There are "services" based upon those two protocols. #SMTP, or Simple Mail Transport Protocol, is an TCP-based protocol to transmit messages from one node on the Internet (or private network) to another node. #The link between the two could be wired, RF, cans-n-string, whatever you want. #It's still, however, talking TCP and IP.

With EchoLink, you are using TCP/IP as the "transport" to transport the digital audio from one node to another. #Once you traverse the Internet and go out an RF connection, no TCP or IP packets are used; Only the packets dealing with the digital voice.

With APRS, your beacon or message packets are NOT TCP/IP. #APRS has it's own protocol. #Just as with Echolink, the "Internet gateways" just "transport" that data from one node to another, and once it gets past the gateway, no TCP/IP are used. #In your example, only your weather data is making it to your skywarn ham's vehicles. #THEY are not connected to the internet in real time talking TCP/IP back to your weather station.

The other side to the coin is, using RF to implement the TCP/IP protocol between two RF stations, with one being connected to the Internet. #This allows a ham operator with an rf-connected-computer to be able to fire up his browser and surf the web, send and receive e-mails, do instant messaging, browse porn, etc.

There is no "very fine line" here. #Some systems use the Internet soley to move data from one point to another, "linking" the two points together. #Other systems actually provide "Internet access" over the air to an RF-connected computer.

Clear as mud?

Scott, N5KRC
I have my CISSP and CCNA, so I'm very familair with tcp/ip and exactly how the OSI model works.....

Just to clarify a couple of the points you mad, obviously, APRS nor Echolink/IRLP use TCP/IP over the RF link... (although APRS uses AX.25 which was developed off of X.25 which was a commen layer 2 linking standard used back in the '90 (and before) to connect sites to the internet... TCP/IP being a layer 3/4 protocol).... We both agree, in that statement... no tcp/ip on the rf side.

Not that I've ran a Winlink node, but from a quick glance at the winlink website, it doesn't run tcp/ip nor smtp on the rf side either... just like aprs internet gateways, they take tcp/ip data, and convert it to an RF protocol, aprs using ax.25 and winlink seems to use either own protocol they refer to as B2... while it looks somewhat similair to smtp... not anymore so than ax.25 looks similair to x.25.

So, what we can all agree on is APRS, Echolink/IRLP, and Winlink do not run tcp/ip on the RF side of their connections. The only difference is the content of the RF transmissions and the fact they all use slightly different protocols on the RF side.

Now, the idea that setting up tcp/ip on ham radio is somehow an evil thing... this is exactly what I don't want to see happen... I can think of many different types of experiments I'd like to be able to turn using tcp/ip (not directly connected to the internet... but the protocol using mesh networks on 1.2ghz and beyond is very interesting to me)...

So, in the end, tcp/ip has nothing to do with this conversation... at no point does tcp/ip touch the rf side in any of the above examples (except my mesh network design http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )

Again, from a pure technical standpoint, APRS-IS and Winlink are virtually the same. The difference is the content, and restricting content from the internet has to be done carefully or it will limit use and good ham radio functions.

[N5KRC]

Well good! We're both credited network and security professionals! I guess I misinterpreted what you said.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't that taking internet traffic and placing it on ARS...
To me, "Internet traffic" would be something along the lines of HTTP, POP3, SSL, SMTP, LDAP, RADIUS, IMAP, and any other acronyms you can come up with.

I realize that setting up WinLink doesn't open port 25 on your 756. S'why I didn't reference it in my response. I was trying to make the distinction between "internet traffic" and amateur radio "data".

But yeah, we're on the same page here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]Again, from a pure technical standpoint, APRS-IS and Winlink are virtually the same. The difference is the content, and restricting content from the internet has to be done carefully or it will limit use and good ham radio functions.
When you put it that way, I couldn't agree more!

Scott, N5KRC

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (WA2DYA @ Dec. 12 2005,15:14)]So saying, he gave the spur to his steed Rocinante, heedless of the cries his squire Sancho sent after him, warning him that most certainly they were windmills and not giants he was going to attack. He, however, was so positive they were giants that he neither heard the cries of Sancho, nor perceived, near as he was, what they were, but made at them shouting, "Fly not, cowards and vile beings, for a single knight attacks you."
dear charles

ham radio does not need saving

your posting are fast becoming redundant

pray tell, do you know any other songs

mac

[WA2DYA]

Dear Mac,

I agree with what you said. But I'm not the Charles is on a one man crusade to save Ham Radio. I think you should have directed your comment to the other Charles. He's the one who is on his high horse 'Charging the Windmills'.

--- CHAS

[w8znx]

i re posted your Cervantes quote
because it mirrors my feelings
about the whole thing

my coments were directed at 5PVL not you

mac

[kg4dci]

Quote[/b] (N5KRC @ Dec. 13 2005,13:31)]Well good! #We're both credited network and security professionals! #I guess I misinterpreted what you said.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't that taking internet traffic and placing it on ARS...
To me, "Internet traffic" would be something along the lines of HTTP, POP3, SSL, SMTP, LDAP, RADIUS, IMAP, and any other acronyms you can come up with.

I realize that setting up WinLink doesn't open port 25 on your 756. #S'why I didn't reference it in my response. #I was trying to make the distinction between "internet traffic" and amateur radio "data".

But yeah, we're on the same page here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]Again, from a pure technical standpoint, APRS-IS and Winlink are virtually the same. #The difference is the content, and restricting content from the internet has to be done carefully or it will limit use and good ham radio functions.
When you put it that way, I couldn't agree more!

Scott, N5KRC
I should have been more careful in my first post to clarify I meant data (as in content) coming from the internet to rf, not tcp/ip or anything specific protocol.

My concern is a rush to judgement because of one application a few folks dislike will down the road harm other operators who are experimenting and implementing good ham radio technology.